http://www.newagebd.com/2008/jul/07/oped.html
New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Monday, July 7, 2008
'National Security Council cannot be good for democracy'
Dr Ayesha Siddiqa Agha, the distinguished Pakistani academic and
author of Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy, talks to
Syeed Ahamed and Faisal Gazi of the Drishtipat Writers' Collective
Q: National Security Council is a looming spectre for Bangladesh. What
is your view on the matter?
A: A national security council will only institutionalise the
military's role in Bangladesh's policy process. In every case, this
Turkish model which has already been used ineffectively in at least
three countries, Turkey, Pakistan and Chile, has undermined democracy
by establi****ng a top-down authoritarian model. No matter what the
intention is, the outcome of military authoritarianism cannot be good
for democracy.
What has been the role of the NSC in Pakistan and how has it affected
civilian administration?
When General Musharraf came to power, he immediately sought the help
of the civil administration. The bureaucracy is very self-serving and
responds positively to authoritarian rule. It does not have a
political agenda and is far happier living with military bureaucracy.
Bangladesh must have experienced the same during the 1980s. However,
whenever the military starts to expand its control over the civil
administration, civil bureaucrats become uncomfortable and non-
cooperative.
Some say a meddling military is to be expected in weak democracies
like Bangladesh and Pakistan and, therefore, we might as well
institutionalise their role through an NSC. What is your view on this?
Both Bangladesh and Pakistan were 'created' without any major plan. We
always compare ourselves with India. But the Indian Congress was
exposed to a certain level of political accountability even during the
First World War. Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, which was the result
of a bargaining movement of Muslim elites who had no social
development agenda. The elites did not even go for land reforms.
In East Pakistan, the separation movement also started without an
agenda and even until the late 1960s there was no plan beyond
provincial autonomy. So ultimately, Bangladesh also inherited the
problems which Pakistani politics faced when it was created. Also
worth bearing in mind is that the majority of the original officers of
the Bangladesh military were repatriated officers from Pakistan.
What is common between Pakistan and Bangladesh is that politicians
never learn from history. You cannot have true democracy with a top-
down centralised political system in place. You need to revamp the
political system considerably to ensure a multiple structure within
the political system.
You have made repeated warnings to Banglade**** politicians before the
events of January 11, 2007. In the current political reality, why
should the people of Bangladesh want the failed politicians back?
Yes, it is understandable that the politicians did not act responsibly
which might have prompted the military to step in. However, Bangladesh
was heading towards an NSC anyway and I could even sense the growing
role of the military when I visited Bangladesh in 2006.
Bangladesh needs to address the long due political reforms which it
requires to ensure grassroots participation, change of political
culture and devolution of democracy with local level political
institutions (such as panchayet in India).
Bangladesh's political parties are an absolute mess at the moment and
the military cannot be blamed for their total disorder. However, if
Bangladesh fails to take the long road to political devolution and
institutionalisation, and resort to the quick-fix solution of
introducing an NSC, the situation is going to be a lot worse.
Civil society in Bangladesh welcomed and then accepted the army
intervention just like their counterparts did in Pakistan. The
relation****p has now soured and the disenchantment is now palpable.
What role should civil society play in Bangladesh now?
Bangladesh has a stronger and more progressive civil society than
Pakistan and they have a rich history of revolting against
authoritarianism. My question is: Where has this civil society been
during this period? Didn't they see it coming?
Apparently, the educated middle class have been very frustrated with
the politicians, but this short-cut solution of NSC will only worsen
the already weakened democratic system.
Civil society thought it would be able to use the military to overhaul
the decaying political system. But the military is not a toy which can
be thrown aside after you use it. Once used to bring change, it will
start to demand its own share of the power. I guess, like in Pakistan,
civil society has been thoroughly lazy by taking these shortcuts to
reform. This will only be destructive in the long term. It is a
mistake Pakistan has made and Bangladesh seems all set to follow.
What are, in your opinion, the most damaging aspects of an NSC in a
weak democracy that are not communicated to or not allowed to be
discussed by the public?
A national security council will not only institutionalise an
authoritarian political system, once the military becomes part of this
system, the system will become less transparent as well. Hence
reforming that authoritative system will be much more difficult than
reforming the existing political system.
Some say the establishment of an NSC directly affects the rise of
religious right wing (Islamist) politics. Would you say that there is
a link between the two phenomena in the context of Pakistan and
Bangladesh?
Since military power does not have a development agenda, religion
systematically becomes the power player in politics. Once religion
enters the political system, it looks different. The BNP used it and
the AL did not oppose it properly. The fear is, if Bangladesh uses an
authoritarian system like the NSC, this political Islam will become
more dominant.
Another concern is the overwhelming connection between military and de-
facto religious fundamentalism. The military has always promoted
religious groups. Ziaur Rahman was active in rehabilitating these
groups when he was in power. In Pakistan Islamist groups are linked
with the intelligence services, ISI (Directorate for Inter-Services
Intelligence, also known as the Inter-Services Intelligence).
What I also noticed in Bangladesh is the rise of anti-Indian
sentiment. This is exactly the kind of thing that will force the
military to cooperate with the religious right. There has always been
an informal link between military and the religious right. An NSC is
going to strengthen that link. And inevitably, you will witness how
civil liberties will gradually be taken away.
Does an NSC have any benefits and, therefore, can there be any such
thing as a best case scenario?
Giving military a role in the development process is not a bad idea.
But giving them a role in the policy process is probably not a
constructive idea either. Last time Bangladesh experienced a military
takeover, it ended in 1990, after fifteen years in power.
However, the military is far more disciplined and commanding than
political institutions. Over the years, the Banglade**** military has
evolved from a ragtag revolutionary force to a hierarchically
organised bureaucratic institution.
The new structure makes it politically more potent and lethal in
pu****ng back civilian institutions. If the military is given an
institutional role in the political system, it will eventually
overstep politicians to create an elite power structure of its own.
So, it is a bad idea to give it more power and to use it as a
powerbroker.
|
